The Bombay High Court has rejected a divorce petition filed by a Parsi woman settled in Perth, Australia, after holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain her Parsi matrimonial suit because the ceremony held in Mumbai was not a valid Parsi marriage ceremony, but a “Tandoorasti” — a traditional Zoroastrian prayer, blessing and reception held for couples. The court relied on the unanimous finding of a jury of Parsi delegates that the November 2010 event was not an “Aashirwad”, the Parsi marriage ceremony required for the court to exercise jurisdiction under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
The wife submitted a video recording of the Mumbai event for the jury’s consideration. A single-judge bench of Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan rejected the argument and upheld the preliminary objection raised by the husband. It also held that her argument was contrary to the scheme of the PMD Act, which does not recognise different rituals followed by different Parsi groups in India.
The woman had approached the high court in 2018 seeking divorce from her estranged husband, claiming that their marriage had been solemnised in Mumbai in November 2010. She had also sought ₹ 5 crore as permanent alimony. Her estranged husband, who is also settled in Perth, raised a preliminary objection to the petition, contending that the event held in Mumbai in November 2010 was merely a reception and that no rituals contemplated under Section 3 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 (PMD Act) had taken place in the city. The court referred the issue to a jury in September 2024, when a Parsi Session was held. The court noted that the parties had, by consent, agreed to refer the question of fact — whether the November 2010 event in Mumbai was a Parsi marriage ritual — to the jury, which had unanimously answered the question in the negative.
He therefore argued that the high court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matrimonial suit.
The jury, comprising five delegates chosen by the state government from a panel, unanimously concluded that the event held on November 20, 2010, was not a marriage ceremony but a “Tandoorasti” or blessing ceremony, and not the “Aashirwad” ceremony followed by Parsis or Iranian Zoroastrians in India. She further argued that the court was not bound by the “opinion” of the jury and that evidence should be led and a full trial conducted to determine whether the November 2010 event constituted a valid marriage ceremony. The court said the woman’s objection to the jury’s conclusion was too “simplistic” as it was based purely on the etymology of the term, an issue that would hardly require evidence to be led.
